Democracy tarnishes its heroes as surely as revolutions devour their children. For 25 years, the leaders of Solidarity personified the qualities needed to win Poland's struggle for democracy: unbending courage in the face of the communist Leviathan and magnanimity and clear-sighted determination during the transfer of power. All of these were great and noble qualities, and all of them now seem utterly superfluous to most Poles.
That is the sad lesson of Poland's parliamentary election two weeks ago, and of Sunday's indecisive presidential election (which will be decided by a run off between Donald Tusk and Lech Kaczynski on Oct. 23).
To be sure, the communists-cum-postcommunists who have dominated Polish politics since 1989 were utterly repudiated -- the left got scarcely 11 percent of the vote in the parliamentary poll. But Solidarity's old guard has also been cast aside. Poland yearns for something new.
Poland's recent elections were the first in which the postcommunist left was irrelevant. The postcommunists know that they can no longer live off their legacy of organization and discipline, so they have chosen a clever and attractive 34-year-old leader. He has nothing to do with the communist era and has sacked all former Party members from important positions, even barring former prime minister Leszek Miller from standing for parliament.
This is undoubtedly all to the good. But the overall health of Polish democracy is another matter. Turnout for the parliamentary election was 40 percent, which puts Poland near the bottom in voter participation among the democratic nations of the world, and about 25 to 30 percent below the European average.
Political apathy reflects many factors, but two stand out. A few days before the parliamentary election, people were asked if they hoped for a better life. An astounding 60 percent said that they do not. Hopeless people do not vote.
Second, one of the necessary conditions of a functioning democracy are clear and sufficiently distinct party political programs. That is not the case in Poland. Parties' programs changed with the public opinion polls, and their economic proposals were either too complicated or too muddled for voters to grasp. So the 40 percent who voted did so for emotional reasons, not as a clear political choice.
Among the leading politicians of the parties that overwhelmingly won the parliamentary elections -- the neo-liberal Civic Platform and the conservative-populist Law and Justice? -- almost every face has been around since 1989. So the members of the new government, although not physically old, are politically geriatric. The Solidarity/postcommunist divide seems to have pickled Polish politics, leaving it without a new generation of leaders and thus without enthusiasm.
Unsurprisingly, the young are the most estranged. When I asked my students at Warsaw University how many intended to vote, only two raised their hands. Perhaps others were ashamed to say they care about politics and did, in fact, vote, but they can't have been many. An entire generation has grown up to be apolitical, even anti-political, which bodes ill for the future.
The most difficult problems in Poland are unemployment, which hovers around 20 percent -- the highest rate in the EU -- and the growing divide between rich and poor. Indeed, only in Russia (and perhaps in Ukraine) is the income gap wider. Yet neither of these issues was raised decisively in the campaign. The main issues that both victorious parties highlighted were the communist past and public corruption.
Both are important issues, but they are secondary to the problems of joblessness and poverty. Indeed, it is estimated that 30 percent of Polish children do not get enough to eat. This is Europe, so they do not die of hunger. But that a third of all children in a member country of the European Union live on one meal a day is a source of shame -- and thus should also be a primary political issue.
This is all the more peculiar given that the victorious parties that emerged out of Solidarity are keen to promote its values, particularly "solidarity" with a small "s." But their purpose is purely instrumental, for to call somebody a "liberal" nowadays in Poland is more pejorative than calling him a "son of a bitch."
Indeed, "liberal" in both its meanings -- economic and moral -- is disdained. Liberals are viewed as vampires, seeking only to make money for themselves and their cronies. So it is understandable that both leading presidential candidates, Donald Tusk and Lech Kaczynski, ran as fast as they could from "liberal" ideas.
But what does small-s solidarity mean in practical terms? Nobody knows, and neither Tusk nor Kaczynski was saying. They suggested only some vague notions of state intervention on behalf of the poor and needy.
The death of postcommunism in Poland has thus been greeted not with a bang but with a whimper.
There is nothing devastating in this, of course, but Poland's political malaise may one day prove dangerous, and so should be scrutinized in other democracies, old and new. For the problems of anomie, apathy, and political charade are not Polish problems, but maladies that increasingly afflict democracies everywhere, and that urgently call for a restoring of faith in parties and politics.
Marcin Kr?l is dean of history at Warsaw University, holder of its Erasmus chair and publisher of Res Publica, Poland's leading intellectual journal.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.